On Media

How Twitter changed the news, cont.

Chris Cillizza picks up on Reid Cherlin's political media autopsy and places blame for the sour state of White House press relations squarely on the rise of social media:

Technology... has fundamentally re-oriented the relationship between politicians, the media and the average person. ... Reporters, used to being the main conduit through which news travels, have been forced to look for other ways to cover the news. ... Technology allowed politicians the ability to move beyond the media filter. It also allowed journalism to move beyond doing only "who, what, when and where" reporting. ... The traditional dynamics that governed the White House-media relationship for decades are in the process of disappearing, wiped away by the fundamental manner in which technology has changed the way information is produced and consumed.

As a result, Cillizza notes that his blog has become more analytical and less reportorial. With all the news readily available on Twitter, there's less need to write your own re-hash of the "who", "what", "where" and "when." Better to push the ball forward with the "why" and the "what's next." Such sentiments may help to explain the rising trend in analytical journalism across the board.

There's an obvious exception to this, which is the scoop or the exclusive. Most news isn't readily available because it hasn't been broken yet. But that's the only reporting that really matters. Most everything else can be aggregated or ignored. In that regard, technology — the Internet, Twitter, etc. — is actually quite liberating. It frees up time for investigation and analysis. It rewards original work.

Media organizations that feel stymied by the White House would probably be smart to invest more resources in investigative reporting and analysis, and spend less time worrying about matter-of-fact write-ups from the campaign trail or the daily press briefing. The only links Twitter users want to click on are the ones that promise something novel.